About your Search

20121002
20121010
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
states" was a very interesting and important one. i think that the obama administration would say, look, if there was no daylight the israelis might well have taken military action by now and the u.s. would be sucked into it. the u.s. would have to join it. so there has been daylight, but the daylight in the obama administration's view has been intended to say to the israelis, "look, we're not at the point yet where they're about to get a bomb, there are other possibilities, including more sanctions and more sabotage." >> rose: prime minister netanyahu would welcome this speech? >> by and large yes. but there were some interesting statements that i'm not sure if the word would be "welcome." when governor romney talked about a two-state solution in the middle east and talked about a prosperous and secure independent palestinian state, that was interesting to me because given some of his previous comments people may have wondered whether he represented something of a departure and that to me was his way of saying look, i'm in the mainstream on important issues, i'm in the mainstream on th
-aircraft and anti-armor. >> rose: that's a distinction from the obama administration according to the -- >> right. i think the nuclear weapons capability line with iran. that seems to be different because the president's always talked about we're not going to contain an iran with nuclear weapons. mr. romney seems to be saying we're not even prepared to get that close. obviously the devil's in the details. >> rose: so governor romney's red line may be earlier than president obama's red line. >> exactly right. i actually thought one other thing was interesting which is he talked about our relationship with most of the arab countries. the egypts and others, the libyas. what he essentially laid out was called a conditional foreign policy. essentially saying, look, the era where we gave aid to you all and you act as you see fit is over. we will continue to work with you but only so long as you meet us halfway, whether it's the way you treat women, girls and minorities, your foreign policy more broadly against israel and terrorism. i think that's an important statement and one that people in both parties
, the republican nominee criticize the obama administration for allowing chavez to expand his influence in the region. >> and our neighbors want to resist the failed ideology of hugo chÁvez and the castro brothers and deepen ties with the united states on trade and energy and security, but in all these places, just as in the middle east, the question is asked -- where does america stand? >> that was mitt romney. danny glover, your response? >> poverty in the area is 40%, near 40% over the last 13 years. in venezuela, and all of the region. part of it is associated with the integration. once you get out into the fields, you begin to talk with people who have worked their way and not with cash handouts, but worked their way out of poverty. that is the real story of achievement, not only in venezuela, the other places as well. >> finally, danny, you have spent time with president chavez. were you with him when he voted? how is his health? he has been treated -- >> i saw someone, and i have not seen pictures of president chÁvez over this ordeal in terms of his health and dealing with his
the united states and iran is better now than it was at the beginning of the obama administration in 2000-- 2008/2009? >> i have said i don't want to talk about something that would affect-- that would affect the u.s. elections. but i can state my own desires. i think, i think that the current situation between iran and the u.s. is to both parties disadvantage. there is certainly much room for improvement. why should the u.s. government be in conflict with us i haven't really been able to understand this so far. and i'm a political person. has the united states government have any gains, i'm not saying we have had any gains. no, we certainly didn't have any gains. why should we be in conflict with each other this is a serious question. >> rose: it's a very serious question. >> after all the american politicians should sit down and answer this question. why should we disagree with one another. >> rose: and i will ask them but what about your side? what can you do, what are you prepared to do, what changes have you made in terms of your attitude about the united states. your willingness to
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)